I wonder what the general consensus would be if the Raps had won the coin flip and drafted Barnes at 7?

Oh yeah, the coin flip was another sort of those things that were beyond the GM's control.

That's just it. For every unlucky story, there are so many stories of luck... Orlando drafting Hardaway & Shaq in back-to-back years, with the lowest % chance of getting the #1 pick... championship contender San Antonio losing Robinson to a serious injury, just at the right time in the right year to wind up forming the twin towers by drafting Duncan... the list goes on and on. A sound strategy for sustainable roster acquisition and development is crucial... though a little luck can go a looooong way!

Or you can look at Cleveland, who actually has had picks high as OKC did for multiple drafts (2 top-4 in 2011). Instead of having a three-headed monster like Durant(1)/Westbrook(4)/Harden(3), they have Irving(1)/Thompson(4)/Waiters(4)/Zeller(17 via trade for 24). In their case, you could say they were following the 'OKC model' perfectly... except they drafted more like Portland, rather than OKC!

Now there's an interesting question: Would you rather have Cleveland's roster which have had as many multiple top-5 1st round picks in successive drafts as OKC did (to draft Durant/Westbrook/Harden), or would you rather have Toronto's roster which has only had 1 top-7 pick in the past six years? It's bad drafting with great lottery luck VS good drafting with no lottery luck, by teams both going through post-superstar rebuilding via draft and organic growth.

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Lowry was available this year (had issues with McHale)? That Morley was tearing apart his roster and accepting draft picks for everything?

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Casey was leaving Dallas when he did and Toronto was in a position to replace their coach?

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' Fields contract was coming up and NY had made it difficult for themselves to resign him?

None of those things were in Toronto's control either. Toronto didn't plan around those events happening. Should those situations be considered any more or less lucky than someone who makes a great draft pick?

The difference between Presti and Colangelo or Otis Smith or who ever else one wants to list isn't 'luck'. Its patience and timing. Its risk reward recognition. Its talent recognition. Its what you do with that 'luck' and how effect your contingencies are for 'bad luck'.

I wonder what the general consensus would be if the Raps had won the coin flip and drafted Barnes at 7?

Oh yeah, the coin flip was another sort of those things that were beyond the GM's control.

I can only speak for myself, but Toronto drafting Barnes as opposed to Ross would have no impact. Having Kemba or Knight instead of Val would change nothing. Having Nash instead of Lowry wouldn't change anything.

The problem I have is none of the long term important peices on this team have proven themselves - Bargnani hasn't shown consistency. Demar hasn't shown anything but athleticism. Eds just a question mark. Val and Lowry haven't played yet. Is this 2011 Fields or 2012 Fields. The shorter term important peices have proven themselves, but they are just 'pretty good' players (Amir, Jose).

What I see is a team of Lowry, Amir, Jose and a bunch of "I don't know what they'll do's". Even then, two of the 'known' players are probably near the top of the trade list, and Lowry is on a 2 year deal.

This the what concerns me about this team long term. And why I think Colangelo was too quick 'accelarate the rebuild'.

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Lowry was available this year (had issues with McHale)? That Morley was tearing apart his roster and accepting draft picks for everything?

Lowry is a great player and hopefully a significant piece to the puzzle but not a franchise changer.

Craiger wrote:

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Casey was leaving Dallas when he did and Toronto was in a position to replace their coach?

Casey was an assistant coach. He is in Toronto because he was offered a head coaching job which he came close on other opportunities. I wouldn't classify hiring a coach as luck because it is a controllable event. There was no coaches draft preceded by a lottery ball system that allowed Toronto to hire Casey.

Craiger wrote:

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' Fields contract was coming up and NY had made it difficult for themselves to resign him?

Toronto overpaid in large part due to a failed plan to sign Steve Nash. I don't classify this one as bad luck and it certainly isn't good luck. Fields is also not a franchise changer or all-star. He is a solid glue guy who is now handsomely paid.

Craiger wrote:

None of those things were in Toronto's control either. Toronto didn't plan around those events happening. Should those situations be considered any more or less lucky than someone who makes a great draft pick?

Toronto (hopefully) made the most of the opportunities presented to them. Toronto/BC had full control to trade for Lowry, hire DC, and sign Fields. OKC had no control on high school draft picks forbidden in 2006, the lottery balls moving them up from #5 to #2, and a franchise talent available at #2.

Craiger wrote:

The difference between Presti and Colangelo or Otis Smith or who ever else one wants to list isn't 'luck'. Its patience and timing. Its risk reward recognition. Its talent recognition. Its what you do with that 'luck' and how effect your contingencies are for 'bad luck'.

All valid points. I think this is well agreed within the RR community. However patience, timing, risk reward recognition, and talent recognition does not account for a rule change forbidding high school draft picks to enter the 2006 draft, lottery balls making a team go from outside the top 3 in to it, or multiple supposed franchise talents being present in a draft and the one with an injury shortened career being selected ahead. There is a significant uncontrollable risk to being a shitty team and hoping balls bounce your way to get a top 3 pick and hope a franchise changer is available.

In all of this, I'm not sure if 'luck' is the correct term. Maybe uncontrollable events? There are uncontrollable events that provide teams with opportunities that management has no control over: draft rule changes, bouncing lottery balls, and another team's unfortunate choice all led to Durant being in OKC. Why the emphasis on Durant and OKC? Because he is a franchise player of which there are really and truly only a handful of in the NBA and OKC would likely still be a pretty good young team if you removed Durant but I don't think many believe they'd have been in the NBA Finals last year without him.

This all comes back to Toronto and the manner in which BC is building the last 2 years. A very good argument can be made that the way to go was to trade away all assets for draft picks however I don't think a very good argument can be made that the Raptors would be farther ahead than they are now. There are way too many variables and uncontrollable events to assume they would have landed the elusive franchise player.

I can only speak for myself, but Toronto drafting Barnes as opposed to Ross would have no impact. Having Kemba or Knight instead of Val would change nothing. Having Nash instead of Lowry wouldn't change anything.

The problem I have is none of the long term important peices on this team have proven themselves - Bargnani hasn't shown consistency. Demar hasn't shown anything but athleticism. Eds just a question mark. Val and Lowry haven't played yet. Is this 2011 Fields or 2012 Fields. The shorter term important peices have proven themselves, but they are just 'pretty good' players (Amir, Jose).

What I see is a team of Lowry, Amir, Jose and a bunch of "I don't know what they'll do's". Even then, two of the 'known' players are probably near the top of the trade list, and Lowry is on a 2 year deal.

This the what concerns me about this team long term. And why I think Colangelo was too quick 'accelarate the rebuild'.

The only issue with not accelerating the rebuild is I don't think they were going to be bad enough to get a top pick without lottery 'uncontrollable event' or the controversial luck.

This is speculation on my part but many bigger, better, and much more compensated basketball minds believe the new CBA is going to change opportunities for teams. I'd rather be in a situation to field a young and competitive team (which I think the Raps have done) while also positioning to take advantage of new CBA rules such as no sign and trade for tax teams and a new super luxury tax. Hopefully a combination of rookie contracts and cap space might be enough to pick the pocket of a desperate team.

There are a lot of ideas going on in the thread. I guess I can sum my ideas up with this statement: there is more than one way to build a successful team and I have confidence the current situation in Toronto can lead to a successful team.

I really don't see "drafting player X" as any more or less controllable (or lucky) than "trading for player Y". There are uncontrollable events that take place for both to happen:

To Draft - its where the ball hits (within certain criteria) and who drafts before you

To Trade - its who is available (not controllable), what do they want (not controllable).

So for the example of Lowry. He was 'untouchable' (or so I hear) early in the season. Then he got hurt, Dragic played well in his minutes and kept Lowry on the bench. Lowry then had problems with McHale. Morley decided to blow up the team and wanted lottery picks. All those events led to making Lowry available for trade. The only item in that list that was controlable was what Colangelo was willing and able to offer.

It takes atleast 2 parties for any action to take place in the NBA. A trade takes atleast 2 teams, a signing takes the team and a player, a draft takes the team and other teams decisions.

The only control the team has is what are they willing to do to 'sweeten the pot'. Offer more in a deal or signing, make more cap space to make things possible, 'tank' or attempt to trade down to improve its draft chances etc. But even then the size or capacity of the deal is controlled by league rules, making more cap space either takes time or another team, tanking or trading down requires other teams to 'not tank' (as well anyways) or another partner.

There are many uncontrollable events leading up to any move taking place.

there is more than one way to build a successful team

I absolutely agree with this. But there is also a history that we can look to see which methods are more or less successful or risky than others, both in general and within certain criteria (eg. Market place). We can also look at just how successful the organization and management has been.

Between Colangelo's general record in Toronto and more specifically his attempts to build a team through trades and signings, putting less value on draft picks, and already attempting to build with many of the players that are here. That to me isn't encouraging. He's had a tendency to be overconfident in his decisions (drafts, signings or trades) and then too agressively and quickly pursued results before seeing actual and consistent on court production. He did it in in 2006, 2009 and I feel like he's doing it again now.

To Trade - its who is available (not controllable), what do they want (not controllable).

I think in all moves and circumstances, there will be aspects or points where the big boss has the ability to control, or no ability whatsoever.
Like you said in this trade, who is available and who they want may, not coincide with what the Raptors want or need, but they have the total control to create a scenario, etc, etc.

Also, you're comment.. "He's had a tendency to be overconfident in his decisions (drafts, signings or trades) and then too agressively and quickly pursued results before seeing actual and consistent on court production. He did it in in 2006, 2009 and I feel like he's doing it again now"

There's no doubt about it one bit, he is pushing for results to earn a contract, but, I think, this specific team in my opinion, is indifference.

Younger, more potential, talented. The franchise is under great flexibility, good trade assets, a great coaching staff, not to mention this team was the most improved defense last season. Last couple years, defense is the reason why teams win championships. Now, I'm not saying the Raptors will win a championship, now that is serious optimism, but I believe this team will breakout and make the playoffs. I think there will be drastic improvements at individual positions, the team, the offense, the defense, etc. This team is better, and the financial part is at a good stage, where many teams will be dying under.

Even if this team doesn't have a playoff season, but drastically improves, and young players are developing in the right way, I'll be a very happy fan. This team is ONLY in the 3rd year of the rebuild, and quite frankly, BC has been doing a great job of putting a team together since the departure or Bosh.

I really don't see "drafting player X" as any more or less controllable (or lucky) than "trading for player Y". There are uncontrollable events that take place for both to happen:

To Draft - its where the ball hits (within certain criteria) and who drafts before you

To Trade - its who is available (not controllable), what do they want (not controllable).

So for the example of Lowry. He was 'untouchable' (or so I hear) early in the season. Then he got hurt, Dragic played well in his minutes and kept Lowry on the bench. Lowry then had problems with McHale. Morley decided to blow up the team and wanted lottery picks. All those events led to making Lowry available for trade. The only item in that list that was controlable was what Colangelo was willing and able to offer.

It takes atleast 2 parties for any action to take place in the NBA. A trade takes atleast 2 teams, a signing takes the team and a player, a draft takes the team and other teams decisions.

The only control the team has is what are they willing to do to 'sweeten the pot'. Offer more in a deal or signing, make more cap space to make things possible, 'tank' or attempt to trade down to improve its draft chances etc. But even then the size or capacity of the deal is controlled by league rules, making more cap space either takes time or another team, tanking or trading down requires other teams to 'not tank' (as well anyways) or another partner.

There are many uncontrollable events leading up to any move taking place.

I absolutely agree with this. But there is also a history that we can look to see which methods are more or less successful or risky than others, both in general and within certain criteria (eg. Market place). We can also look at just how successful the organization and management has been.

Between Colangelo's general record in Toronto and more specifically his attempts to build a team through trades and signings, putting less value on draft picks, and already attempting to build with many of the players that are here. That to me isn't encouraging. He's had a tendency to be overconfident in his decisions (drafts, signings or trades) and then too agressively and quickly pursued results before seeing actual and consistent on court production. He did it in in 2006, 2009 and I feel like he's doing it again now.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of luck or uncontrollable events in tearing down a franchise and building through the draft.

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Lowry was available this year (had issues with McHale)? That Morley was tearing apart his roster and accepting draft picks for everything?

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' that Casey was leaving Dallas when he did and Toronto was in a position to replace their coach?

Wasn't Toronto 'lucky' Fields contract was coming up and NY had made it difficult for themselves to resign him?

None of those things were in Toronto's control either. Toronto didn't plan around those events happening. Should those situations be considered any more or less lucky than someone who makes a great draft pick?

The difference between Presti and Colangelo or Otis Smith or who ever else one wants to list isn't 'luck'. Its patience and timing. Its risk reward recognition. Its talent recognition. Its what you do with that 'luck' and how effect your contingencies are for 'bad luck'.

I wouldn't call contract status luck, since it's quite public. Some teams just use that awareness more effectively than others. Miami gutting their roster to make a run at both LeBron & Bosh is a perfect example, as suddenly you see lots of teams essentially gutting their team and tanking one season, to preserve cap space for an offseason or two later, to be able to target a specific free agent. I find it ironic that people don't consider that to be tanking, but if it's done to better your team's draft position, it is...

I can only speak for myself, but Toronto drafting Barnes as opposed to Ross would have no impact. Having Kemba or Knight instead of Val would change nothing. Having Nash instead of Lowry wouldn't change anything.

The problem I have is none of the long term important peices on this team have proven themselves - Bargnani hasn't shown consistency. Demar hasn't shown anything but athleticism. Eds just a question mark. Val and Lowry haven't played yet. Is this 2011 Fields or 2012 Fields. The shorter term important peices have proven themselves, but they are just 'pretty good' players (Amir, Jose).

What I see is a team of Lowry, Amir, Jose and a bunch of "I don't know what they'll do's". Even then, two of the 'known' players are probably near the top of the trade list, and Lowry is on a 2 year deal.

This the what concerns me about this team long term. And why I think Colangelo was too quick 'accelarate the rebuild'.

On the surface, I can agree that there are arguments in favor of trading away every asset a team has, in order to maximize cap space and draft picks to begin a true rebuild. However, I have 3 issues with this line of thinking:

1. BC kept his 1st round pick for 4 straight seasons, having 3 picks in the top-10. Every draft pick (DeRozan, Davis, Valanciunas and Ross) was praised and widely regarded as BPA. Your argument would be to trade players who were drafted high and have become 'busts' (to some degree), in order to be able to acquire more 1st round picks, where you hope BC will draft BPA. Who's to say that the new BPAs will prove to be any better than the BPA draft picks that he traded away? There's always a combination of talent evaluation and luck with drafting players; I think you're overvaluing the 'new' and the 'unknown' a little too much, especially since we don't know if the future draft picks acquired will be top-3, top-5, mid-late lottery or non-lottery picks.

2. If you hold players on the roster in such low regard, with such a willingness to trade them, perhaps other GMs share your view. Without knowing what has been offered back to the Raptors in trade for every single player and combination of players, there's no way you argue that it would have been in the best interest of franchise rebuilding to trade all the team's assets. If Bargnani would have returned a top-3 pick in a loaded draft, without taking back a bad contract, then you could argue that BC made a mistake. Or is that not enough, since any draft pick is an unknown? Would you be happy with top-5 pick? Top-10? Again, unless we know the facts regarding the true trade value of every asset, it's hard to accurately evaluate BC's management of the roster in the face of a rebuild.

3. At some point, a team needs to at least attempt to grow and improve organically, with at least some of the players they have, in order to develop team chemistry and give the fanbase players to get attached to. You can't turnover an entire roster every season, even if you got a good return for each and every player, because the team/franchise would have absolutely no continuity. A team of newly acquired players, whether they are drafted, signed or traded for, will have a hard team competing, even against teams that are inferior talent-wise, but have good on-court chemistry and established rotations, etc... Plus, how well would a team do recruiting free agents, if that team is known to blow-up their roster on an annual basis - the fact that Toronto already has a tough time recruiting top tier free agents, would only serve to compound this issue.

I wouldn't call contract status luck, since it's quite public. Some teams just use that awareness more effectively than others. Miami gutting their roster to make a run at both LeBron & Bosh is a perfect example, as suddenly you see lots of teams essentially gutting their team and tanking one season, to preserve cap space for an offseason or two later, to be able to target a specific free agent. I find it ironic that people don't consider that to be tanking, but if it's done to better your team's draft position, it is...

Sure you can make room for players (like I said 'sweeten the pot') - but you can't force a player to sign with the team. Nor can you force the opposing team to not sign a player (match a contract). Nor can you force another team to put itself into difficult cap position. None of those are within a teams 'control'.

Colangelo recognized that Fields was coming up, was restricted and could offer a poison pill. But he didn't spend his time 'rebuilding' with the plan to do that. He did take advantage of an opportunity. But so did any other GM take advantage of an opportunity when they make their draft choice.

(and just off hand one can 'tank' in order to give themselves the best opportunity to get the best available pick, or try and trade for picks to increase the opportunities to draft, should that be their choice. That is not so far off opening cap space to try and sign a player. ie. trying to create an opportunity)

Sure you can make room for players (like I said 'sweeten the pot') - but you can't force a player to sign with the team. Nor can you force the opposing team to not sign a player (match a contract). Nor can you force another team to put itself into difficult cap position. None of those are within a teams 'control'.

Colangelo recognized that Fields was coming up, was restricted and could offer a poison pill. But he didn't spend his time 'rebuilding' with the plan to do that. He did take advantage of an opportunity. But so did any other GM take advantage of an opportunity when they make their draft choice.

(and just off hand one can 'tank' in order to give themselves the best opportunity to get the best available pick, or try and trade for picks to increase the opportunities to draft, should that be their choice. That is not so far off opening cap space to try and sign a player. ie. trying to create an opportunity)

And I think that's the biggest difference between OKC and Toronto. Both teams made good picks in their draft position; OKC happened to have top-4 picks in 3 straight drafts, while Toronto had a #9, #13, #5 and #8 in 4 consecutive drafts. OKC got lucky with the lottery balls in 2007, moving up to #2, where they got even luckier by having a superstar fall into their laps - nobody could have possibly messed up that pick, with landed them Durant. Toronto has not had any draft luck like that during their rebuild. However, I would argue that the rebuilding strategies the two teams are employing is the same - build through the draft and organic growth, while augmenting the roster with a few key, advantageous trades/signings.